Should the Colorado legislature enact civil unions? (5 letters)

Sen. Ellen Roberts, the lone Republican voting for the civil-unions bill in the state Senate, got it right in seeing the issue as one of equality under the law and promoting families. To those opposed, I say relax, the sky is not falling. Ask your fellow legislators in states, starting with Vermont, what happened after civil unions or domestic partnerships were instituted. The answer is: nothing bad, and it’s no longer an issue. Last year New Hampshire, with a strong Republican majority, considered repealing marriage equality. The measure failed, including amongst Republicans, because no harm had been done.

Rick Opler, Parker

This letter was published in the Feb. 13 edition.

State Sen. Pat Steadman was reported as saying that those of faith who oppose this legislation should “Go inside your church, and if you want to, set up separate water fountains in there.”

As a Christian and citizen, I oppose legislation that places our government above God’s natural law, including the civil-unions bill. And I don’t agree that my faith should be confined to the walls of a church.

I care deeply for Sen. Steadman and all others who view this issue differently than me. I do not judge him and his lifestyle, nor should he judge me as one opposed to this bill (let God be the judge). I gladly invite Sen. Steadman to join me for a drink at the water fountain at my church.

Jim Mulford, Lone Tree

This letter was published in the Feb. 13 edition.

My question to those who oppose civil unions is this: What would granting civil-union status to those in a committed same-sex relationship take away from you? Oh, I don’t mean how it offends your holier-than-thou moral indignation. You can still have that. However, it shouldn’t be allowed to affect others’ lives. I am interested to know: What tangible thing that you can hold in your hands would be taken away from you by granting others the tangible advantages of civil unions? Just askin’.

Theo Davis, Arvada

This letter was published in the Feb. 13 edition.

Now that Colorado civil unions are going to become a reality, it will be interesting to learn how many of those gay and lesbian individuals who have been calling for this legislation will actually form a union of their own vs. continue to complain it is not a “marriage.” That will be the next assault — change the Colorado Constitution to allow gay marriage. Wait and see.

I disagree with Brad Clark’s pro-civil-unions column. He is wrong — children should be at the center of this debate. A 2011 study by Mark University of Texas sociologist Regnerus surveyed 2,988 young adults from various family origins. This large random study showed some significant differences between children raised in gay-couple families versus children raised in intact biological families. More large random studies should be pursued of possible differences between adult adopted children raised by same-sex couples versus heterosexual married couples, to see if similar disadvantages exist for adult adopted children of same-sex couples. Then we can make a fair, unbiased judgment on the merits of civil unions for the sake of the children.

John Faltermeier, Lakewood

This letter was published in the Feb. 13 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Theo Davis has it exactly right. If civil unions are enacted in Colorado, all those uptight Christians who oppose it will still have the same marriages they had before, plus an added benefit: The satisfaction of knowing their marriage is better than civil unions, because their marriage was blessed by God, while their church can refuse anything to do with gay couples.

Mr. Mulford, spare me your sanctimoniousness. In the same manner that people say it’s not about the money when it is about the money, your non-judgement is full of judgement. And quit hiding behind God’s skirts. I can’t stand people who say “Oh, I’m not judging you, God is judging you.” At least with the Fred Phelps of the world, there is no phony mercifulness. Nope, Fred Phelps and his kind lay it right out there that they don’t like us. None of this “I don’t condemn you, the Bible condemns you” baloney. Nope, you ARE condemning us. Just be honest about it.

thor

Theo Davis could be right and less snarky Rick Opler wrote a much more balanced and thoughtful letter. Davis was just as sanctimonious as Mr. Mumford, if not more so. Lastly, when you use “us,” are you saying you are gay? Or are you using the royal “us.”

peterpi

Nope, not a drop of royal blood in me. I’m bi.

thor

I have a friend who is also bi. She is married to a man, but speaks about her male side in his presence. I will never ask what that means because I respect the person.

peterpi

Think of the yin-yang diagram. There’s a little yin in the yang, a little yang in the yin. Neither is completely free of the presence of the other.
Men have naturally occurring estrogen levels, just a lot smaller than in women. Women have naturally occurring testosterone levels, just a lot smaller than in men. Those attributes we associate with masculinity can also occur in women, those attributes we associate with femininity can also occur in men.
Neither men nor women are completely free of the presence of the other.

RTDennis

Peter, you have strengthened my theory that there isprobably some gay in all of us, from 1 % to 100%. Your theory based on hormone levels is obviously more scientific than mine, but with the same outcome.

I believe that most folks who think homosexuality is a choice have a higher percentage of gay. For example, making love to another man is so abhorrent to me, that I could never choose to do it. I know that our homosexuality level is something that we are born with, not a choice. But a man with a little higher level of estrogen could feel that homosexuality might be a choice for some guys. In your case as a bi, you have enough estrogen or gay genes or whatever (probably somewhere around 50/50) that homosexuality really IS a choice for you. Either way, we do not have a choice of how much gay we are born with.

toohip

RTD, are you serious???! You believe in choice, but it’s based on levels of estrogen and testosterone? I think you need to send this to the scientists who study this as to your revelation! So . . “how much gay” do you think is in you?

peterpi

If homosexuality is not a choice, and I emphatically don’t believe it is, then people are going to try to find a physical basis for it.
Hormones are a logical place to look.
Now, that can reinforce stereotypes — gay men are effeminate lesbians just want to be one of the boys — but if one gets away from “homosexuality is a Satanic plot”, then there should be a physical basis for it.
In a tolerant society, it doesn’t matter. But, nonetheless, we humans are curious about everything and want to find a reason for it.

peterpi

I was using only using hormone levels as an example that even the human body seems to have a yin-yang thing going: A little yin in the yang. A little yang in the yin. A little female in the male, a little male in the female.
I was giving thor a way of explaining why a woman would talk about her masculine side. “Masculine” and “feminine” in our society — all socieities? — has as much to do with culture as biology. There’s no real physical-adeptness reason a man can’t be a manicurist, or a woman can’t be a coal miner, but society thinks such people are, um, “odd”.
A biological basis for homosexuality is a double-edged sword. On the onbe hand, it might make some people more accepting. On the other hand, it will re-double the efforts of some to “fix” it.

thor

Got it.

toohip

oooh, thor your compassionate (read: liberal) side is showing!. No worry, we still “believe” in your conservative agenda. :o)

toohip

thor, I see more and more with your comments, that you struggle with your “independent raised in a Democratic “kennedy” household move to conservatism, now represented by the Tea Party”. . transition. You secretly agree with Theo Davis, but in Davis being so . . . (gulp!) . . “direct” in his question you want to “believe” it’s “snarky” and “sanctimonious???” In your attempt to “level the playing field” between the anti-gay religious types and the realistic civil union types, you’re revealing your “independent” beliefs. Don’t worry, we’ll still let you carry your Tea Party membership card and talk the talk ;o)

The “political” cartoon that gave various reasons why the Pope is retiring had one noteworthy comment: The 15th Century wants him back.

Both that comment and the “civil union” matter are based on the same assumption: That Liberals and Progressives are making our State, our Country, and the World a much better place to live.

Unfortunately…..the reverse is actually the Truth.

The final 7-year period called the Tribulation, the End Times, and the Latter Days…..and the Times of Jacob’s Troubles…..does not come about when the Liberals and Progressives make the world “good enough”……but will usher in when the world actually gets “that bad enough”…..in GOD’S eyes.

There can be NO DISPUTE, even amongst Liberals/Progressives themselves, that they and their ideology is morphing the world and the world’s thoughts……more and more away from those found in the Bible.

God is out; Secular Atheistic Humanism is in.

Creation is out; atheistic evolution is in.

Homosexuality is not out; homosexuality is in…..very, very in.

Marriage is being redefined. Pornography is protected. And Liberals/Progressives are teaching matters of “sexuality” that is contrary to what the Bible has to say.

Biblically…..the world is not getting “better”…..but is getting “worse”…..and is approaching the same level of “evil” that God saw in the days of Noah.

I don’t know who the next Catholic Pope will be……or what his ideologies may be…..but if “the world” is any indication…..the next Pope could be far more Liberal/Progressive……and that Middle East Peace Treaty that starts that 7-year Countdown……may come far sooner than most of us can imagine.

“Should the Colorado legislature enact civil unions?”

The correct answer is “no.”

But the State, the Country, and the World…..will say “yes”……as they get farther and farther away from God and His Word……and the Tribulation gets closer and closer.

GregoryR

Lord have mercy. Again Rbrt Mellenialism is a heresy reject by Christianity since the earliest times. It’s stuff like this that at times makes me wish that John’s Apocolypse hadn’t made it into the Canon of Scripture.
Also, while I disagree with progressivism as a secular philosophy it isn’t changing the Bible. It’s changing the Bible only based on your idolatrous view of it.
Believe it or not Christianty existed for almost four hundred years with out the Bible and the world changed even then. What ever changes that have, are, and will occur do so because God has allowed them, even if He doesn’t like them. Trust in God and dread naught. And lay off the Left Behind novels.

peterpi

Really? I thought Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins got the idea from Robtf!!!
“atheistic evolution is in”. I wonder what all those atheists are evolving into?

GregoryR

Maybe, but I suspect Robrt thinks they wrote the Bible, or at least were heavily involved in the creative process.

thor

I don’t know how the final bill will play out. But the bill should not force Catholic Charities to adopt children to gay couples. There are plenty of other adoption agencies who can do that.

peterpi

The bill won’t, even if it is silent. The First Amendment and the similar Colorado Constitution provision are still in full force.

thor

So, the Catholics are worried for nothing? I hope you are right.

john

why do you feel the need to lie? absolutely this bill will require Catholic charities to accept homosexual couples in the adoption process. In states that have instituted homosexual civil unions, religious organizations which refused to accept homosexual couples were forced to close. simply more lies coming from those perverts who support perversion

TomFromTheNews

Catholic charities adoption agencies continue to operate just fine in states with legal civil unions and even equal marriage. Simply more fear-mongering coming from those haters who support exclusion.

P.S. The minute such a “forced” scenario happens, it will be all over the media, so maybe you have that to look forward to.

jayreadyjay

We’ve already seen how tolerant to left is to religious beliefs with Obamacare’s mandate requiring employers to provide birth control etc even if it is against the religious principles of the organization (if they can’t comply they should get out of business). Do you really think that forcing Catholic charities adoption agencies to accept homosexuals couples isn’t going to be a problem in the future?

TomFromTheNews

The birth control under Obamacare issue has to do with women’s HEALTH, which employers must cover. And the first time Catholic Charities is told by the state that they MUST accept or even consider an adoption application by a gay couple, don’t worry. It will be all over the headlines and further clarification will be required. You don’t think the authors of the civil unions bill don’t realize this? And where is the precedent in the C.U. or marriage equality states where C.C. has been “forced” to do this?

Fear, fear, fear…

Dano2

If they talk about women’s health, they lose the argument and are pushed further into irrelevance.

Best,

D

peterpi

Try this on:
The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and Catholic Charities (CC) insist on adding an explicit exemption to any bill having to do with homosexuality, because it’s their way of using every possible means to remind everybody that they are pure and noble, while those darn homosexuals are are impure and beneath their dignity.
They know that the First Amendment still applies. They know that Article II, Section 4 of the Colorado Constitution still applies. They know that other laws, which the civil unions bill does not alter, still apply.
But, it’s their way of constantly upholding themselves above GLBT people: “We must be exempt from these sinful untouchables who would sully our pristineness.” It’s a way of, over and over again, asserting their superiority.
It’s exactly the same as the businessmen — and the overwhelming majority are men — who whine about covering birth control coverage for women while having no problem with covering ED drugs. It’s a way of sahowing women who’s boss.
It’s identical to those states that have passed laws declaring that pharmacy employees — and again, it’s mostly men — have an absolute right, without fear of being fired or disciplined, to tell the “little lady” coming to pick up her properly prescribed contraceptives, “No, I won’t get your prescription, and no, I won’t ask someone else to it.”
It’s about power.
It’s about control.
It’s about asserting absolute moral supremacy
.

toohip

agree, an org still gets to cling to it’s old world religious faith, when operating it’s business, er church. But any bet the RC’s will fight to stop the “other adoption agencies?”

reinhold23

“Significant differences”, eh? Well we all know different is bad…

John

“My question to those who oppose civil unions is this: What would
granting civil-union status to those in a committed same-sex
relationship take away from you?”

as a business owner I would be forced by law to accept the immoral lifestyle of homosexuals. that is what this tragic law will take away from us, the freedom of religious conscience.

peterpi

If you are open to the general public, you are open to all of the general public.
That is the fundamental basis of all civil-rights laws.
There are business owners who feel inter-racial or inter-religious marriage is immoral. Should they be able to refuse to offer goods and services to such couples? There are people of one religion who feel people of a different religion are immoral. Should they be able to refuse to offer goods and services?
Now, if you want a total libertarian-style society where business owners can decide who to serve or not serve, and the citizenry decides where to spend its dollars, then work for the repeal of all civil-rights statutes.
But until then, you are open to all of the general public.

toohip

Imagine. . . a business world where the religious and personal morality of the owner is part of the business advertising to attract like-minded believers, and how it affects those that would disagree. Is wearing one’s religious and personal morality on your sleeve . . . or on your sign outside your business. . . make good sense as we navigate through life with the rest of a (progressive) society

TomFromTheNews

Your “religious conscience” as you call it is intact and you are free to hate anyone you want. As a business owner, you may refuse to serve members of the general public at your own legal risk.

And stop with the “immoral lifestyle” malarkey. Tennis is a lifestyle. Stamp collecting or bird watching is a lifestyle. Sexual orientation is part of who we are (how God made us, if you prefer). And immoral? Keep your ideas of immorality to yourself please. Personally, I find people who waste their precious minutes on this earth condemning others or watching reality TV as practicing immoral lifestyles.

toohip

In other words, John, you want to control what your employees believe in and how they think, and use that as a hiring criteria. While illegal – and as a business owner, I know you obey the laws of the land – your narrow mindedness is safe while just calling yourself “John.” If you believe this so strongly why not publish your name and your business so all like-minded people will flock to your employment and show appreciation by doing business with you? Or is this not a good business practice to expound?

Dano2

as a business owner I would be forced by law to accept the immoral
lifestyle of homosexuals. that is what this tragic law will take away
from us, the freedom of religious conscience.

I wonder how similar that sounded to the lunch-counter owners who refused to serve blacks in the south. I wonder…I wonderrrr…I wonnnnnderrrrrrr…..

Best,

D

peterpi

There was one difference: Jim Crow was the law.
Now, a lot of lunch-counter operators may have liked the law, but nonetheless, it was the law.
I think if you deliberately opened a business open to all comers with mixed seating on a first-come-first-serve basis, you were in violation of the law. At a minimum, you stood a good chance of getting a friendly meeting from the local chapter of the White Citizens Council, who would offer to “protect” your business from the KKK — f you changed your seating..

toohip

I love the irony that religions, i.e., Christianity, lays claim to “marriage”, and makes (Catholic-like) claims that it’s “about children.” Ignoring that only about 20% of households have “married with children” households and 30% have “married without children.” Or that same sex couples in a “marriage” or other union, also can have, raise and nurture children. Theo Davis asks the burning question, that I don’t believe you hear the usual suspects (aka Robtf) give an acceptable answer too. While the rest of the online post is bogged down and inundated with the gun control argument and shutting down the system, this one is still working and another hot-button issue. But you have to “believe” or have “the faith” to “understand” their argument.

Dano2

He is wrong children should be at the center of this debate. …Then we can make a fair, unbiased
judgment on the merits of civil unions for the sake of the children.

There are enough people on the planet. Plus, First World demographics are changing and many households are moving away from traditional white hetero familial totems.

That is: plenty of relationships don’t want to have children, and the number is growing.

Seems to me the objection is simply another religious paroxysm in reaction to growing irrelevance.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.